Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Forourselves said:

Remember, there was 2 design teams collaborating on the class rule.

Good to see you still believe everything you read in press releases. The idea that LR made any significant contribution to the AC75 design rule doesn't stack up in the light of the evidence out there. Consider the following

  • LR set up a training program using a TP52, which has about as much relevance to the AC75 as sailing a square rigger
  • Immediately after the rule was announced, the LR training program was changed, they started buying foiling boats to give their guys experience and they recruited Spithill despite saying they were going to be an Italian only team, because they were short of foiling helm experience.
  • Interviews with Bertelli and other high up team members have all suggested that they were surprised by the concept but were persuaded once ETNZ had shown them the potential of the boat. I believe there is little doubt that LR was first shown a developed concept.

Therefore, at best, LR might have contributed to writing the rule  for a concept that as developed by ETNZ. They did not help develop the concept.

All of this is rather besides the point. LR and ETNZ both complained long and loud about Alinghi having an unfair advantage because they wrote the rule. It was their biggest complaint against Alinghi, and they considered it far worse than a dodgy  CoR. Then there was the complaint about the change to the AC50. Again, part of the complaint was because those who knew about the potential change had been given a head start (and yes, LR had a case because they were furthest ahead with their design work).

Have ETNZ done anything against the rules? No, but they have done something that they have complained that other teams have done and that shows they do not hold themselves to the high standards they have held others to. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Good to see you still believe everything you read in press releases. The idea that LR made any significant contribution to the AC75 design rule doesn't stack up in the light of the evidence out there. Consider the following

  • LR set up a training program using a TP52, which has about as much relevance to the AC75 as sailing a square rigger
  • Immediately after the rule was announced, the LR training program was changed, they started buying foiling boats to give their guys experience and they recruited Spithill despite saying they were going to be an Italian only team, because they were short of foiling helm experience.
  • Interviews with Bertelli and other high up team members have all suggested that they were surprised by the concept but were persuaded once ETNZ had shown them the potential of the boat. I believe there is little doubt that LR was first shown a developed concept.

Therefore, at best, LR might have contributed to writing the rule  for a concept that as developed by ETNZ. They did not help develop the concept.

All of this is rather besides the point. LR and ETNZ both complained long and loud about Alinghi having an unfair advantage because they wrote the rule. It was their biggest complaint against Alinghi, and they considered it far worse than a dodgy  CoR. Then there was the complaint about the change to the AC50. Again, part of the complaint was because those who knew about the potential change had been given a head start (and yes, LR had a case because they were furthest ahead with their design work).

Have ETNZ done anything against the rules? No, but they have done something that they have complained that other teams have done and that shows they do not hold themselves to the high standards they have held others to. 

 

First of all, this has to be one of the most comical statements of the whole discussion! 
So because Luna Rossa started with a TP52 program they weren’t good enough to have any significant input into the AC75 class rule? Land Rover BAR did the same in a collaboration with Tony Langleys Gladiator racing team. So you obviously think INEOS don’t have a chance at doing anything significant either right? American Magic started with the Quantum Racing team 52 Super Series team of which Doug De Vos owns, Terry Hutchinson skippers and Dean Barker helms. So they’re done too right? Back in 2010 and in 2011, ETNZ won the Audi Medcup back to back in the TP52 and went on to introduce the foiling AC72 to the America’s Cup. So that’s your first theory debunked. Just because a team races in the 52 Super Series does not mean they aren’t good enough for the America’s Cup.

ETNZ are done too right? I mean they never had a foiling anything until Te Aihe was launched.

Second, as much as he got under Kiwi skins in San Francisco and Bermuda, Spithill is a proven AC winner and leader. He is an asset to any team he joins.

Third, both Horacio Carborelli and Martin Fischer, as well as Dan Bernasconi have all publicly said both design teams developed the rule. So there’s your second theory debunked. But I guess you’re gonna say they’re all lying right?

Thirdly, they complained about the rule being unfair because it wasn’t deed legal. I’m sure as you know the DoG governs the event. If a challenger is not deed compliant they can not be accepted as valid, therefor can not develop a class rule jointly with the defender, so the gripe ETNZ had (as all teams did back then) was correct. Alinghi and it’s Challenger never complied with the DoG so never should have developed a protocol or class rule together. So there’s your 3rd theory debunked.

As for the change to the AC50, NO. The gripe was it was too late to change the Class Rule, and they couldn’t amend it without unanimous consent anyway, so they used their beholden majority to amend the protocol instead of the class rule to replace it at the behest of LR as CoR which forced their withdrawal.

At the same time they removed the previously agreed to Auckland qualifier jeopardising ETNZs ability to continue and forcing an arbitration dispute Between ETNZ and ACEA which ETNZ won.

ETNZ have done none of that. Your conspiracy theories have been debunked and Our high standards remain. 
 

Do you know how incredibly ludacris your post above is? Sheesh.

Try again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Good to see you still believe everything you read in press releases. The idea that LR made any significant contribution to the AC75 design rule doesn't stack up in the light of the evidence out there. Consider the following

 

Yes said something similar to me which I replied by showing you a press release from PB which contradicts your statement completely. I even gave you the link to the statement in a prominent website

are you saying PB has written a lie 

Why would he lie

whats does he gain by do so

Yet you choose to ignore these questions and repeat yourself in another post

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

First of all, this has to be one of the most comical statements of the whole discussion! 
So because Luna Rossa started with a TP52 program they weren’t good enough to have any significant input into the AC75 class rule? Land Rover BAR did the same in a collaboration with Tony Langleys Gladiator racing team. So you obviously think INEOS don’t have a chance at doing anything significant either right? American Magic started with the Quantum Racing team 52 Super Series team of which Doug De Vos owns, Terry Hutchinson skippers and Dean Barker helms. So they’re done too right? Back in 2010 and in 2011, ETNZ won the Audi Medcup back to back in the TP52 and went on to introduce the foiling AC72 to the America’s Cup. So that’s your first theory debunked. Just because a team races in the 52 Super Series does not mean they aren’t good enough for the America’s Cup.

Try again.

He came up with the same TP52 story with me. After doing some research I found out the same information as you. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

So because Luna Rossa started with a TP52 program they weren’t good enough to have any significant input into the AC75 class rule? Land Rover BAR did the same in a collaboration with Tony Langleys Gladiator racing team. So you obviously think INEOS don’t have a chance at doing anything significant either right? American Magic started with the Quantum Racing team 52 Super Series team of which Doug De Vos owns, Terry Hutchinson skippers and Dean Barker helms. So they’re done too right? Back in 2010 and in 2011, ETNZ won the Audi Medcup back to back in the TP52 and went on to introduce the foiling AC72 to the America’s Cup. So that’s your first theory debunked. Just because a team races in the 52 Super Series does not mean they aren’t good enough for the America’s Cup.

WTF are you talking about. Try reading, rather than jumping to conclusions because your comment doesn't match what I said. Of course all the challenger teams got into TP52's. they were expecting a proper monohull but when the rule was announced, they then cancelled their TP52 campaigns because sailing TP52's is irrelevant to AC75's (some of the AM sailors kept sailing Quantum because they had been long associated with the boat). If LR knew about the proposed design, why did they waste time and money on setting up a campaign that was not relevant and which they then cancelled? That would make no sense. It is true that while they cancelled their campaign on the TP52, they kept using one for evaluating sailors for their junior program (New Generation), but the main team sailors didn't sail the 52 after the announcement of the rule. Max Sirena gave an interview win which he discussed this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, P Flados said:

Not offended, just could not help responding given the circumstances.

Take it to PA right? Or is it ok if the history being referred to can be claimed offensive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SimonN said:

WTF are you talking about. Try reading, rather than jumping to conclusions because your comment doesn't match what I said. Of course all the challenger teams got into TP52's. they were expecting a proper monohull but when the rule was announced, they then cancelled their TP52 campaigns because sailing TP52's is irrelevant to AC75's (some of the AM sailors kept sailing Quantum because they had been long associated with the boat). If LR knew about the proposed design, why did they waste time and money on setting up a campaign that was not relevant and which they then cancelled? That would make no sense. It is true that while they cancelled their campaign on the TP52, they kept using one for evaluating sailors for their junior program (New Generation), but the main team sailors didn't sail the 52 after the announcement of the rule. Max Sirena gave an interview win which he discussed this.

First of all, thats not what you said. This is your first bullet point:

The idea that LR made any significant contribution to the AC75 design rule doesn't stack up in the light of the evidence out there. Consider the following

  • LR set up a training program using a TP52, which has about as much relevance to the AC75 as sailing a square rigger
  • Immediately after the rule was announced, the LR training program was changed, they started buying foiling boats to give their guys experience and they recruited Spithill despite saying they were going to be an Italian only team, because they were short of foiling helm experience.

Here's where this is incorrect. The Class Rule was announced on the 29th of March 2018.

LR's TP52 was launched on May 13th 2018, 2 months AFTER the AC75 class rule was published. They then participated in the entire 2018.series.

The reason they cancelled was because they were busy building and designing, their test boat, and training for the AC75, launched in October of 2019.

Maybe do your research before posting non sense.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

First of all, thats not what you said. This is your first bullet point:

The idea that LR made any significant contribution to the AC75 design rule doesn't stack up in the light of the evidence out there. Consider the following

  • LR set up a training program using a TP52, which has about as much relevance to the AC75 as sailing a square rigger
  • Immediately after the rule was announced, the LR training program was changed, they started buying foiling boats to give their guys experience and they recruited Spithill despite saying they were going to be an Italian only team, because they were short of foiling helm experience.

Here's where this is incorrect. The Class Rule was announced on the 29th of March 2018.

LR's TP52 was launched on May 13th 2018, 2 months AFTER the AC75 class rule was published. They then participated in the entire 2018.series.

The reason they cancelled was because they were busy building and designing, and training for the AC75, launched in October of 2019.

Maybe do your research before posting non sense.

 

To add to his nonsense

 

The concept boat information ( including its foiling) released 20th November 2017

Three days later on the 23 November LR announce competing in TP52

Heres the link

https://www.52superseries.com/luna-rossa-challenge-to-compete-in-the-2018-52-super-series/

 

SimonN argument is they got into TP52 boats ....maybe its best to use his direct quote

they were expecting a proper monohull but when the rule was announced, they then cancelled their TP52 campaigns because sailing TP52's is irrelevant to AC75's (some of the AM sailors kept sailing Quantum because they had been long associated with the boat). If LR knew about the proposed design, why did they waste time and money on setting up a campaign that was not relevant and which they then cancelled? 

Just make it Clear again I’ll repeat .........They announced their TP52 program after it was known  fact to the whole world that the AC boat was a foiling mono hull

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffs

PB wanted a mono. This was not a secret to anyone. 

three of the currently competing teams were either already involved in a TP52 program and put resources into it or were setting it up and due to contractual obligations had to see it through for a year, 

you can’t just stop a program overnight.well you can but you look fucking dumb and with no Racing to be had it keeps the brand (Prada) in the public eye and fuck it you are paying the team, shore and sailing, they might as well be doing something 

kiwis came up with a flying mono, their entire team sailing team is foiling focused as is the design team so why wouldn’t they? Plus it puts everyone else on the back foot and wrong-foots PB,

GD has the cup so doesn’t give a fuck if he ruffles some feathers (I am paraphrasing)  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I actually agree with your post. 

I do think a TP52 campaign had to be a planned strategy. Yes, contractually, they were obliged to see it through. I also think it was intended and part of the strategy. The team needed to work on the dynamic of monohulls, which is where the TP52's came in, which is also why Dean Barker competed in that series as well as the Congressional Cup under the NYYC.

In regards to the Kiwi's, I agree.

They won. To the victor go the spoils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

Ffs

PB wanted a mono. This was not a secret to anyone. 

three of the currently competing teams were either already involved in a TP52 program and put resources into it or were setting it up and due to contractual obligations had to see it through for a year, 

you can’t just stop a program overnight.well you can but you look fucking dumb and with no Racing to be had it keeps the brand (Prada) in the public eye and fuck it you are paying the team, shore and sailing, they might as well be doing something 

kiwis came up with a flying mono, their entire team sailing team is foiling focused as is the design team so why wouldn’t they? Plus it puts everyone else on the back foot and wrong-foots PB,

GD has the cup so doesn’t give a fuck if he ruffles some feathers (I am paraphrasing)  

Most of what you say I agree. Recent posts where on about  SimonN saying LR could not know about foiling monohull because prada had TP52 program. Your info adds further weight to how his position is logically flawed 

also Team New Zealand sailors also competed in the VOR maybe they didn’t know about foiling monohulls

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not in this to trash Simon, so kindly don’t use what I have written to do so. My point you so helpfully overlooked is that the Prada TP52 although publicly announced after the rules /ac boat type,  would have been months in planning and setting up, you don’t just back out or think oh fuck it let’s go sailing in that for a bit

for all three challengers to have committed to some extent to a TP52 they must have seen some merit, even if it was as simple as keeping the team together or they all figured we were getting a relatively trad mono 

burling and tuke, going a doing a Volvo is more about ticking boxes and getting paid while there is fuck all to sail while people draw up AC rules and  deadlines. Langford from oracle did it too for the second time between AC schedules 

in terms of personnel the ETNZ sailing team are /were the most structured towards foiling skills and experience vs monohull inshore racing, to move away from that skill base would have been stupid, for PB to think they would? Haha! 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, P Flados said:

. And of note, Indio may find it interesting that Bill Clinton's people were in charge as the fiasco went from bad to worse.  

And why would you think I'd give a fuck about who was in charge of the Waco fish-bowl shootfest? The more you post the more you confirm the idiocy behind you trumpanzee covidiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

I am not in this to trash Simon, so kindly don’t use what I have written to do so.

SimonN hasn’t been so overtly polite himself today 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, P Flados said:

However, there were a lot of BATF actions that were very suspect and appeared to be very politically motivated.  And of note, Indio may find it interesting that Bill Clinton's people were in charge as the fiasco went from bad to worse.  

that was just shit training and dumb operators

anyone that has used tear gas knows the canister is designed to burn really hot ( so people don't just pick them up and throw them back )

anyone with half a brain knows curtains are generally flammable

firing tear gas through windows onto closed curtains  could and would only end one way

no one questioned the order or thought about safety or consequences

the federal troops murdered all those that were burned to death because they are badly trained, brain dead robots

 

this is what i worked out as i saw it on the news at the time .. how can they fire tear gas at windows with closed curtains .. that's stupid they will catch fire .. sure enough .. there's the fire starting

then of course they lied about it and said the inhabitants deliberately set fire to the curtains .. and my respect for the usa and its well trained personnel sunk just that little bit lower

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mako23 said:

SimonN hasn’t been so overtly polite himself today 

 

That’s not my concern, argument or anything to do with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

That’s not my concern, argument or anything to do with me. 

But you really need to stop all this OT chatter..B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, barfy said:

But you really need to stop all this OT chatter..B)

I gave the bellend his own topic to ruin, shouldn't have replied to it in here either 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, terrafirma said:

When is Patriot going sailing is all I give a fuck about..! :D

I am hearing late this week. It was said to be Splashed about two weeks after being in the high cradle and having its arms put on and the pics of her in high cradle were sent to supporters Wednesday about two weeks back. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AM has laid out what looks like (on the webcam) a large piece of signage with blue background and white lettering on the ground in front of the shed:

- is this preparation for a launch ceremony??

- does it say "American Magic", or does it say "Trump-Pence 2020"??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, terrafirma said:

When is Patriot going sailing is all I give a fuck about..! :D

Apparently the launch party is on Friday.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that a lot of the s**t talk above overlooks that ETNZ "considered" both canting keel and foiling monos.  I am not sure how serious the canting consideration was, but until the new boat was announced, it was still possible that floaters would be chosen. 

LR knew they were in one way or the other, but this level of certainty was much less for all other potential challengers.  LR was in good shape to keep their sailors doing something and should have been in reasonable shape for having a design team assemble and start dusting off their tools.  Other potential contenders may have been wanting to assemble a design team, but with all of the uncertainty (including boat selection), doing so would have been a bigger financial gamble.   

So lets go back over the design head start / advantage stuff yet one more time.  (You might think that the non ETNZ fans just do not want to be "beaten into submission" on this one).

  • ETNZ had a solid design organization with good tools and test data ready to go at the end of last cycle.  Sounds like a pretty big advantage over new / young teams dealing with the uncertainty of mobilizing a design effort without even knowing what would be chosen.   Was it unfair.  Of course not. It was just part of the way the game is played.
  • ETNZ people did studies for the various options instead of an independent group.  This got their tools all dusted off and adjusted for the new game.  It got their guys "tuned up" to thinking through all of the ins and outs for any potential choices including the AC75.  This was done over an extended period.  At the time of the AC75 announcement, they were already well into (my guess is more than half way) into a B1 design phase when other teams were either just getting started, or not even started (given the risk of starting before they knew who they wanted to use based on the boat selection).  Sounds like a huge advantage to me.  Was it unfair.  Sure looks like it to me.  It seems to look unfair to everyone except a group of ETNZ supporters that like to gang up on anyone that disputes any aspect of GDs perfection (I am still looking for a short and polite way to talk about this group without the discussion dropping into accusations and insults.  EFB seemed reasonable but drew insults.  Honestly, I thought about DDDD for Dedicated but Delusional Dalton Disciple, but then noted it would go against my efforts to avoid the bad behavior of stooping to insults.  How about just DDD for Dedicated Dalton Disciple). 
  • Could the boat selection studies have been done "more fair".  The Oracle use of M&M for the boat selection studies that ended with the AC 72 combined with allowing ETNZ to grab Pete Melven is the obvious example of contrast.  Was Oracle perfect.  No, but in this one thing they look to have tried to do it as fair as ,they could.  Simple facts, no need for fussing.
  • What about COR involvement.  
    • If LR were involve in the boat design selection to a large degree, both they and ETNZ benefitted from the collaborative nature of the effort.  Both sides would have probably benefited from comparing results of different people using different tools to look at the same issue.  The unfairness of this postulated case is pretty much a "worst case" and it would be a shared unfairness for defender and COR.
    • If LR were involved, but to a lesser degree, it was probably later on and after the focus was on foiling.  For this case, both would have gained an advantage in getting ready to crank out a B1.  The unfairness of this postulated case is notable and it would be a shared unfairness but overall there would be more of an advantage for the defender and less for the COR.
    • LR involvement may have been little or none.  The unfairness of this postulated case is still notable but would have been and exclusive advantage for the defender.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, P Flados said:

It would seem that a lot of the s**t talk above overlooks that ETNZ "considered" both canting keel and foiling monos.  I am not sure how serious the canting consideration was, but until the new boat was announced, it was still possible that floaters would be chosen. 

LR knew they were in one way or the other, but this level of certainty was much less for all other potential challengers.  LR was in good shape to keep their sailors doing something and should have been in reasonable shape for having a design team assemble and start dusting off their tools.  Other potential contenders may have been wanting to assemble a design team, but with all of the uncertainty (including boat selection), doing so would have been a bigger financial gamble.   

So lets go back over the design head start / advantage stuff yet one more time.  (You might think that the non ETNZ fans just do not want to be "beaten into submission" on this one).

  • ETNZ had a solid design organization with good tools and test data ready to go at the end of last cycle.  Sounds like a pretty big advantage over new / young teams dealing with the uncertainty of mobilizing a design effort without even knowing what would be chosen.   Was it unfair.  Of course not. It was just part of the way the game is played.
  • ETNZ people did studies for the various options instead of an independent group.  This got their tools all dusted off and adjusted for the new game.  It got their guys "tuned up" to thinking through all of the ins and outs for any potential choices including the AC75.  This was done over an extended period.  At the time of the AC75 announcement, they were already well into (my guess is more than half way) into a B1 design phase when other teams were either just getting started, or not even started (given the risk of starting before they knew who they wanted to use based on the boat selection).  Sounds like a huge advantage to me.  Was it unfair.  Sure looks like it to me.  It seems to look unfair to everyone except a group of ETNZ supporters that like to gang up on anyone that disputes any aspect of GDs perfection (I am still looking for a short and polite way to talk about this group without the discussion dropping into accusations and insults.  EFB seemed reasonable but drew insults.  Honestly, I thought about DDDD for Dedicated but Delusional Dalton Disciple, but then noted it would go against my efforts to avoid the bad behavior of stooping to insults.  How about just DDD for Dedicated Dalton Disciple). 
  • Could the boat selection studies have been done "more fair".  The Oracle use of M&M for the boat selection studies that ended with the AC 72 combined with allowing ETNZ to grab Pete Melven is the obvious example of contrast.  Was Oracle perfect.  No, but in this one thing they look to have tried to do it as fair as ,they could.  Simple facts, no need for fussing.
  • What about COR involvement.  
    • If LR were involve in the boat design selection to a large degree, both they and ETNZ benefitted from the collaborative nature of the effort.  Both sides would have probably benefited from comparing results of different people using different tools to look at the same issue.  The unfairness of this postulated case is pretty much a "worst case" and it would be a shared unfairness for defender and COR.
    • If LR were involved, but to a lesser degree, it was probably later on and after the focus was on foiling.  For this case, both would have gained an advantage in getting ready to crank out a B1.  The unfairness of this postulated case is notable and it would be a shared unfairness but overall there would be more of an advantage for the defender and less for the COR.
    • LR involvement may have been little or none.  The unfairness of this postulated case is still notable but would have been and exclusive advantage for the defender.

 

Don't SPAM, look forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, remenich said:

Don't SPAM, look forward.

Efforts to avoid being "beaten into submission" by DDDs (Dedicated Dalton Disciples) are not SPAM. 

Such efforts are needed so that no one will mistakenly assume that DDD positions resemble anything close to objective assessments based on facts as best can be determined.    

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, P Flados said:

Efforts to avoid being "beaten into submission" by DDDs (Dedicated Dalton Disciples) are not SPAM. 

Such efforts are needed so that no one will mistakenly assume that DDD positions resemble anything close to objective assessments based on facts as best can be determined.    

As opposed to the other perspective where Dalton is the most evil person in the game right now because he won lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I goofed, and looked at a response to my post by someone I normally choose to ignore. 

Having seen the response, I would just counter that there is a characterization in the middle.  Some might suggest less than perfect with a possible tendency to be vindictive.  Ask M&C.  They were "part of the team" at one point.  A perfect ETNZ leadership could possibly have handled a financial contractor in such a way as there was never a reason for any grumbling from said contractor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, P Flados said:

Efforts to avoid being "beaten into submission" by DDDs (Dedicated Dalton Disciples) are not SPAM. 

Such efforts are needed so that no one will mistakenly assume that DDD positions resemble anything close to objective assessments based on facts as best can be determined.    

Sounds like ODS Oracle Derangement Syndrome 

:D

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, weta27 said:

AM has laid out what looks like (on the webcam) a large piece of signage with blue background and white lettering on the ground in front of the shed:

- is this preparation for a launch ceremony??

- does it say "American Magic", or does it say "Trump-Pence 2020"??

I don't know how anyone in this universe could support that orange piece of shit excuse for a human being so I really hope it is not a chump-dunce 2020 banner. Hoping they launch soon! 

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, P Flados said:

...based on facts as best can be determined.    

Hmmmm.... In this day and age, facts are subject to interpretation, apparently. So....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though ODS has a little bit of an insulting spin, it is a harmless poke.

Use of ODS would be in the spirit of fun banter on a sailing forum. 

In contrast to say the deplorable behavior of a brainless and insulting post aimed at anyone from the US that admits a conservative political viewpoint.  Again, please take the political jabs to PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Hmmmm.... In this day and age, facts are subject to interpretation, apparently. So....

Interpreting available information is part of the fun and reasonable interpretations when trying to determine facts are encouraged.  When two reasonable interpretations differ, an agreement to disagree is no big deal.

Twisting information, denying the obvious, throwing in distractions, and other poor behavior is something else.  I would argue that this should be either discouraged and/or called out to be poor behavior. 

And for those that care, I will state the incredibly obvious undeniable FACT that all high profile US politicians on BOTH sides engage in LOTS of VERY poor behavior.  Sorry about making this PA statement, but possibly it will minimize the need for insulting responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, P Flados said:

It would seem that a lot of the s**t talk above overlooks that ETNZ "considered" both canting keel and foiling monos.  I am not sure how serious the canting consideration was, but until the new boat was announced, it was still possible that floaters would be chosen. 

LR knew they were in one way or the other, but this level of certainty was much less for all other potential challengers.  LR was in good shape to keep their sailors doing something and should have been in reasonable shape for having a design team assemble and start dusting off their tools.  Other potential contenders may have been wanting to assemble a design team, but with all of the uncertainty (including boat selection), doing so would have been a bigger financial gamble.   

So lets go back over the design head start / advantage stuff yet one more time.  (You might think that the non ETNZ fans just do not want to be "beaten into submission" on this one).

  • ETNZ had a solid design organization with good tools and test data ready to go at the end of last cycle.  Sounds like a pretty big advantage over new / young teams dealing with the uncertainty of mobilizing a design effort without even knowing what would be chosen.   Was it unfair.  Of course not. It was just part of the way the game is played.
  • ETNZ people did studies for the various options instead of an independent group.  This got their tools all dusted off and adjusted for the new game.  It got their guys "tuned up" to thinking through all of the ins and outs for any potential choices including the AC75.  This was done over an extended period.  At the time of the AC75 announcement, they were already well into (my guess is more than half way) into a B1 design phase when other teams were either just getting started, or not even started (given the risk of starting before they knew who they wanted to use based on the boat selection).  Sounds like a huge advantage to me.  Was it unfair.  Sure looks like it to me.  It seems to look unfair to everyone except a group of ETNZ supporters that like to gang up on anyone that disputes any aspect of GDs perfection (I am still looking for a short and polite way to talk about this group without the discussion dropping into accusations and insults.  EFB seemed reasonable but drew insults.  Honestly, I thought about DDDD for Dedicated but Delusional Dalton Disciple, but then noted it would go against my efforts to avoid the bad behavior of stooping to insults.  How about just DDD for Dedicated Dalton Disciple). 
  • Could the boat selection studies have been done "more fair".  The Oracle use of M&M for the boat selection studies that ended with the AC 72 combined with allowing ETNZ to grab Pete Melven is the obvious example of contrast.  Was Oracle perfect.  No, but in this one thing they look to have tried to do it as fair as ,they could.  Simple facts, no need for fussing.
  • What about COR involvement.  
    • If LR were involve in the boat design selection to a large degree, both they and ETNZ benefitted from the collaborative nature of the effort.  Both sides would have probably benefited from comparing results of different people using different tools to look at the same issue.  The unfairness of this postulated case is pretty much a "worst case" and it would be a shared unfairness for defender and COR.
    • If LR were involved, but to a lesser degree, it was probably later on and after the focus was on foiling.  For this case, both would have gained an advantage in getting ready to crank out a B1.  The unfairness of this postulated case is notable and it would be a shared unfairness but overall there would be more of an advantage for the defender and less for the COR.
    • LR involvement may have been little or none.  The unfairness of this postulated case is still notable but would have been and exclusive advantage for the defender.

 

As someone suffering terribly from DDD let me respond

Much of what you write I agree with....let me add my view,

Its obvious in my opinion that LR had inside knowledge. How many decisions they made it’s up to discussion. Either way I doubt that LR adesign team was disadvantaged. 
 

The next question  how much AM and Ineos were affected ?

I accept that they were affected by one or two months but not six

In my opinion and Ineos were not fully operational during the period ETNZ and LR was developing the rule 

of these two Ineos was maybe affected most because they were in existence during the whole period. During this period they were BAR. However they were not well funded but not so poorly funded that they couldn’t attended a design meeting. How much money they could of thrown into design is debatable . 
AM didnt form until October. 
A key important date is when the concept boat was launched. How useful this information is open to debate. It was enough information for AM design team to start simulations. 
Anither key issue is when did ETNZ lock down the design to a point when definitive CFD could happen.  I suspect its December. Others can disagree.   That leaves three months as an advantage. However the AM and Ineos has concept designs in November giving them a month of preparation and initial design work.....During all of  December. Take that month away and ETNZ ends up with two months being ahead.

was that totally fair....No

Was it a massive advantage ....No

 

To totally blame ETNZ for the lack of information is also unfair. LR also played its part by remaining silent 

Another issue to consider is AC35 was a very unhappy experience for LR and ETNZ. Blood was boiling

To expect everyone then to sit down and have a productive meeting of design is asking too much of people. Look at how much we fight among our selves in this forum. Yet  we weren’t directly involved 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P Flados said:

It would seem that a lot of the s**t talk above overlooks that ETNZ "considered" both canting keel and foiling monos.  I am not sure how serious the canting consideration was, but until the new boat was announced, it was still possible that floaters would be chosen. 

LR knew they were in one way or the other, but this level of certainty was much less for all other potential challengers.  LR was in good shape to keep their sailors doing something and should have been in reasonable shape for having a design team assemble and start dusting off their tools.  Other potential contenders may have been wanting to assemble a design team, but with all of the uncertainty (including boat selection), doing so would have been a bigger financial gamble.   

So lets go back over the design head start / advantage stuff yet one more time.  (You might think that the non ETNZ fans just do not want to be "beaten into submission" on this one).

  • ETNZ had a solid design organization with good tools and test data ready to go at the end of last cycle.  Sounds like a pretty big advantage over new / young teams dealing with the uncertainty of mobilizing a design effort without even knowing what would be chosen.   Was it unfair.  Of course not. It was just part of the way the game is played.
  • ETNZ people did studies for the various options instead of an independent group.  This got their tools all dusted off and adjusted for the new game.  It got their guys "tuned up" to thinking through all of the ins and outs for any potential choices including the AC75.  This was done over an extended period.  At the time of the AC75 announcement, they were already well into (my guess is more than half way) into a B1 design phase when other teams were either just getting started, or not even started (given the risk of starting before they knew who they wanted to use based on the boat selection).  Sounds like a huge advantage to me.  Was it unfair.  Sure looks like it to me.  It seems to look unfair to everyone except a group of ETNZ supporters that like to gang up on anyone that disputes any aspect of GDs perfection (I am still looking for a short and polite way to talk about this group without the discussion dropping into accusations and insults.  EFB seemed reasonable but drew insults.  Honestly, I thought about DDDD for Dedicated but Delusional Dalton Disciple, but then noted it would go against my efforts to avoid the bad behavior of stooping to insults.  How about just DDD for Dedicated Dalton Disciple). 
  • Could the boat selection studies have been done "more fair".  The Oracle use of M&M for the boat selection studies that ended with the AC 72 combined with allowing ETNZ to grab Pete Melven is the obvious example of contrast.  Was Oracle perfect.  No, but in this one thing they look to have tried to do it as fair as ,they could.  Simple facts, no need for fussing.
  • What about COR involvement.  
    • If LR were involve in the boat design selection to a large degree, both they and ETNZ benefitted from the collaborative nature of the effort.  Both sides would have probably benefited from comparing results of different people using different tools to look at the same issue.  The unfairness of this postulated case is pretty much a "worst case" and it would be a shared unfairness for defender and COR.
    • If LR were involved, but to a lesser degree, it was probably later on and after the focus was on foiling.  For this case, both would have gained an advantage in getting ready to crank out a B1.  The unfairness of this postulated case is notable and it would be a shared unfairness but overall there would be more of an advantage for the defender and less for the COR.
    • LR involvement may have been little or none.  The unfairness of this postulated case is still notable but would have been and exclusive advantage for the defender.

Just a lot of speculative nonsense without regard for the facts.  The reality is that the Luna Rossa designers were part of ETNZ's team through AC35 and the development of the AC75 class for AC36 so that as COR they were at no disadvantage.

As for BAR, they were active in the way that Oracle tried to weaken ETNZ's position for AC35 so I have no sympathy for them.

Then there is the NYYC, they have a long history of using their position as defender to disadvantage the challengers, when Australia II looked like winning the AC in 1983 NYYC had a vote to disqualify her because of the winged keel. The only lost that vote by one.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tjeezus, i come back here every day to see if some actual news is happening. Just now I had to scroll tru 2 (!!!) pages of only text. You know there are some girly forums where you can have these endless and pointless discussions?  I would like to see pics and stuff from todays action. Not what Joe Sixpack, who has 2 dancing lessons and know how (just) to tie his shoelaces, thinks about the bulbs or the foils.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

Then there is the NYYC, they have a long history of using their position as defender to disadvantage the challengers, when Australia II looked like winning the AC in 1983 NYYC had a vote to disqualify her because of the winged keel. The only lost that vote by one.

I do have some sympathy for the NYYC . The Australian II decision was as you say 1983. That’s 37 years ago, which is a long time. Most of the people who votes are most probably dead. Also in the End they did the right thing. 
 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P Flados said:

....

    • LR involvement may have been little or none.  The unfairness of this postulated case is still notable but would have been and exclusive advantage for the defender.

 

FFS, the Defender has all the advantages in AC since time immemorial!! It's an established FACT, but you trumper covidiots have a problem accepting facts. Here's another fact: Covid-19 is NOT a hoax

ignorance3.jpg.193fe81b60a4c5af08109b6bd16361c1.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, underperformer said:

Tjeezus, i come back here every day to see if some actual news is happening. Just now I had to scroll tru 2 (!!!) pages of only text. You know there are some girly forums where you can have these endless and pointless discussions?  I would like to see pics and stuff from todays action. Not what Joe Sixpack, who has 2 dancing lessons and know how (just) to tie his shoelaces, thinks about the bulbs or the foils.

 

At the present there isn’t any news. What people find interesting varies from person to person. Your not the only person who does not like these discussions. However your not forced to read them all. Others have different views and read them. In between all the bickering interesting information can come out, I’ve leaned a lot more of the recent history of the cup. I like learning new stuff 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mako23 said:

was that totally fair....No

Was it a massive advantage ....No

 

To totally blame ETNZ for the lack of information is also unfair. LR also played its part by remaining silent 

Another issue to consider is AC35 was a very unhappy experience for LR and ETNZ. Blood was boiling

Look out, we seem to be approaching "When two reasonable interpretations differ, an agreement to disagree is no big deal."

I would say that overall design development advantage (some fair, some not) was substantial.  This of course is not the end of the world for AM and INEOS.  It just goes to provide "part of the puzzle" as to why two B1s were "less developed" than those of the defender and COR.  It will "sweeten the victory" for any success by AM or INEOS.

All of the discussion above prompted me to postulate on another aspect of how things worked out.  One reason for the AM B1 to be "less developed" was their strong push to get boats in the water as soon as possible.  For them this was a big deal with respect to getting simulator / model validation data.  They were a new team and I do not believe that they had any applicable data from a previous campaign.  The mule was crude but quick.  This helped with timing but hurt with quality.  Assuming that they would get better quality data from a B1 at the original schedule would seem to be part of why the "crude but early" choice was made for the mule.  They started their B1 build very early and based it on expected arm delivery.  This is where the arm delay became an "inadvertent" disadvantage that hurt AM the most.  S**t happens.  Hindsight would have let them spend a little more time on design before starting their build. 

I would say that I have minimal information that would help with establishing how much "blame" goes to one party or the other.  I agree that both ETNZ and LR leadership have displayed evidence of "extreme emotional agitation" and that this could translate into "instinctive vindictive behavior".  This provides an obvious basis for why they could be tend to be "unfair" even why the "good sportsman" tendency in much of the sailing world strives to do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, P Flados said:

Look out, we seem to be approaching "When two reasonable interpretations differ, an agreement to disagree is no big deal."

I would say that overall design development advantage (some fair, some not) was substantial.  This of course is not the end of the world for AM and INEOS.  It just goes to provide "part of the puzzle" as to why two B1s were "less developed" than those of the defender and COR.  It will "sweeten the victory" for any success by AM or INEOS.

All of the discussion above prompted me to postulate on another aspect of how things worked out.  One reason for the AM B1 to be "less developed" was their strong push to get boats in the water as soon as possible.  For them this was a big deal with respect to getting simulator / model validation data.  They were a new team and I do not believe that they had any applicable data from a previous campaign.  The mule was crude but quick.  This helped with timing but hurt with quality.  Assuming that they would get better quality data from a B1 at the original schedule would seem to be part of why the "crude but early" choice was made for the mule.  They started their B1 build very early and based it on expected arm delivery.  This is where the arm delay became an "inadvertent" disadvantage that hurt AM the most.  S**t happens.  Hindsight would have let them spend a little more time on design before starting their build. 

I would say that I have minimal information that would help with establishing how much "blame" goes to one party or the other.  I agree that both ETNZ and LR leadership have displayed evidence of "extreme emotional agitation" and that this could translate into "instinctive vindictive behavior".  This provides an obvious basis for why they could be tend to be "unfair" even why the "good sportsman" tendency in much of the sailing world strives to do better.

I’m myself are happy to leave it at that.  I don’t think it was that substantial. However that can be argued as to when ETNZ locked their design down to do highly specific CFD design work, I don’t know for sure. However someone disagreeing is not suffering ODS or DDD.

One interesting side point ( let’s not fight over it) is there are three critical issues

1 Hull shape design 

2 Masts and Sails designs

3 Design of the Foil

Which is more important ?

If its no1 then AM and LR were more badly affected

if it’s no 3 then less so, because of concept boat design release 20 November would tell them they needed to collect data and get CFD working on  a winged foil. BAR might already have software in place because of AC35.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mako23 said:

I do have some sympathy for the NYYC . The Australian II decision was as you say 1983. That’s 37 years ago, which is a long time. Most of the people who votes are most probably dead. Also in the End they did the right thing. 

The fact that they NYYC successfully defended the AC for 131 years and have failed to win it back since they lost it 37 years ago is a good indication of how they gave themselves an advantage as defender.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, P Flados said:

Look out, we seem to be approaching "When two reasonable interpretations differ, an agreement to disagree is no big deal."

I would say that overall design development advantage (some fair, some not) was substantial.  This of course is not the end of the world for AM and INEOS.  It just goes to provide "part of the puzzle" as to why two B1s were "less developed" than those of the defender and COR.  It will "sweeten the victory" for any success by AM or INEOS.

All of the discussion above prompted me to postulate on another aspect of how things worked out.  One reason for the AM B1 to be "less developed" was their strong push to get boats in the water as soon as possible.  For them this was a big deal with respect to getting simulator / model validation data.  They were a new team and I do not believe that they had any applicable data from a previous campaign.  The mule was crude but quick.  This helped with timing but hurt with quality.  Assuming that they would get better quality data from a B1 at the original schedule would seem to be part of why the "crude but early" choice was made for the mule.  They started their B1 build very early and based it on expected arm delivery.  This is where the arm delay became an "inadvertent" disadvantage that hurt AM the most.  S**t happens.  Hindsight would have let them spend a little more time on design before starting their build. 

I would say that I have minimal information that would help with establishing how much "blame" goes to one party or the other.  I agree that both ETNZ and LR leadership have displayed evidence of "extreme emotional agitation" and that this could translate into "instinctive vindictive behavior".  This provides an obvious basis for why they could be tend to be "unfair" even why the "good sportsman" tendency in much of the sailing world strives to do better.

So to summarize, ETNZ does not have an obvious advantage other than that granted to them by virtue of winning the Cup.

Any perceived disadvantage to AM at least comes not from ETNZ but from their own strategy. They chose a direction, that direction was to start early, get a boat on the water as soon as possible, possibly sacrificing design time for time on the water. This is not ETNZs fault, nor is it bad sportsmanship on anybody’s part. It’s simply team strategy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

Just a lot of speculative nonsense without regard for the facts.  The reality is that the Luna Rossa designers were part of ETNZ's team through AC35 and the development of the AC75 class for AC36 so that as COR they were at no disadvantage.

As for BAR, they were active in the way that Oracle tried to weaken ETNZ's position for AC35 so I have no sympathy for them.

Then there is the NYYC, they have a long history of using their position as defender to disadvantage the challengers, when Australia II looked like winning the AC in 1983 NYYC had a vote to disqualify her because of the winged keel. The only lost that vote by one.

Are you so sure about the "speculative nonsense without regard for the facts".  Please enlighten me as to which specific statement I made was not a reasonable objective assessment based on facts as best I could determined.   Alternately, one might think that this part of your response just a standard DDD reaction.

See my previous post for my position on LR involvement.  I really do no know much as to the extent of the involvement.  I made no attempt at "spinning" the implications one way or the other.

I understand why ETNZ team members and fans could have bad feelings toward Ben.  A similar situation exists for attitude toward NYYC.  Again, a reason for bad feeling goes to the justification for being unfair, it has nothing to do with how unfair any choices was.  You seem to say "they deserved" to be treated unfairly.  Although I may not agree, I try not to push back much against similar statements when I see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mako23 said:

One interesting side point ( let’s not fight over it) is there are three critical issues

1 Hull shape design 

2 Masts and Sails designs

3 Design of the Foil

Which is more important ?

If its no1 then AM and LR were more badly affected

if it’s no 3 then less so, because of concept boat design release 20 November would tell them they needed to collect data and get CFD working on  a winged foil. BAR might already have software in place because of AC35.

I totally agree with you at the surface level. 

In reality I expect them all to matter and they probably interact so much that each needs to be real good. 

One thing is for sure, if either 2 or 3 are bad, your chances are pretty much sunk. 

Winning with a breakthrough foil and/or sail and a lousy hull (by staying on foils the whole race) sounds unlikely but not entirely impossible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, P Flados said:

I totally agree with you at the surface level. 

In reality I expect them all to matter and they probably interact so much that each needs to be real good. 

One thing is for sure, if either 2 or 3 are bad, your chances are pretty much sunk. 

Winning with a breakthrough foil and/or sail and a lousy hull (by staying on foils the whole race) sounds unlikely but not entirely impossible.  

I’m no CFD expert on this sort of thing. 
 

Considering your on your foils for most of the time .........,means foil design and sails are more important than hull shape

The critical thing in hull design is you need a shape that gets you on your foils quickly.  At this point subtle difference in hull shape are not so critical when the  boat is foiling. Ie having a v shaped hull versus flat hull at 40 knots would not be the critical factor compared to foil or sails.
 

of course all three are important 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mako23 said:

1 Hull shape design 

2 Masts and Sails designs

3 Design of the Foil

Which is more important ?

It will possibly come down to having a slight disadvantage in any area will decide a loser.

1. Hull. This may be the least critical, a minor aero disadvantage may not count for a great deal unless it impacts sail performance.
2. Sails. ETNZ had a distinct advantage in AC35 with their "butterfly wing", so-called by someone due to their ability to trim the wing continually and rapidly, thanks to their innovative method of trimming. I'd expect this advantage to be non-existent in this series - but who knows.
3. Foils. Again, ETNZ had the advantage with their foil design in AC35 - thinner foil profiles (by using steel construction), plus having a crewman dedicated to adjusting them. They were able to use their foils across a wider wind range than others, plus, IMO, the foil shape gave them better lateral (windward) lift, due to that distinct dihedral "kink" in the foils. This helped achieve a higher point of sail and VMG. I'd guess that this will be most important, as keeping the AC75 foiling will be crucial, especially in light air.

It will be interesting to see what tack the B2s take.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

The fact that they NYYC successfully defended the AC for 131 years and have failed to win it back since they lost it 37 years ago is a good indication of how they gave themselves an advantage as defender.

Look in the early years NYYC did not play fair with the rules. However in the J boat and 12 Meter era, I’m not so convinced. 
Other factors to consider is both world wars and there economic after effect need to be counted into the 131 years

Other factors not the NYYC fault is some of the poor challengers. Some of them were useless and of low standard. Sometimes the challenger boat was faster but crew work and skippering were bad.

The defender trials were far more vigorous than  the challengers preparation. This was the case with the Aussies. Their preparation work was inferior. At times the challenger didn’t even have competition to race and train against before the actual cup match.

This is also not the NYYC fault

 

The one unfair rule was during this period their was a rule that your boat had to been built with materials and technology sourced in the challengers country. For small countries like NZ that would of been a problem 

Bigger countries like Australia and GB not such a big issue. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

The fact that they NYYC successfully defended the AC for 131 years and have failed to win it back since they lost it 37 years ago is a good indication of how they gave themselves an advantage as defender.

BINGO!!

You win a toaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indio said:

FFS, the Defender has all the advantages in AC since time immemorial!! It's an established FACT, but you trumper covidiots have a problem accepting facts. Here's another fact: Covid-19 is NOT a hoax

I see you continue to stoop to insults instead of providing a response that discusses anything of value.  I hope throwing insults makes you feel better.  It pretty much does nothing else (except reflect poorly on you or anyone else that smiles when they read you post).

Given that I have repeatedly said that the AC allows unfair advantages, I do not see why you seem to think I have a problem with this as being factual.  You really do not need to tell me this again.  I knew it long before you seemed compelled to say it over and over.

Your attack on me as a covidiot is just so laughable that I have tried to avoid wasting the space it would take to educate you. I  made a few posts in the SAAC Covid thread, but with all of the fact twisting and Trump bashing, it soon became obvious that the thread was worse than useless. In some non-sailing forums I have argued strongly with people more deserving of your insult.  Covid is most assuredly not a hoax.  It is becoming more and more personal all the time when people we know get sick and/or die.  We all owe it to each other to take reasonable precautions to minimize spread.  I have a son that works at a hospital and routinely deals with Covid patients.  He is living at home, so that he can further his education.  Both myself and my wife have health issues that increase our risk.  We try real hard to take appropriate precautions both when we go out (only when needed) and inside of my house.  I routinely review factual statistics and monitor treatment developments.  I have been exceedingly disappointed with what is now happening in Spain, France, Netherlands, and to a lesser extent the UK given that the US provided such a good example of what not to do.  Here is the most recent 5 day average of new case per day per million for select countries.

image.thumb.png.31ab91b9c04fa6458e2af45086523efc.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MaxHugen said:

ETNZ had a distinct advantage in AC35 with their "butterfly wing"

I think the term was "humming bird wing" - from that pommy commentator....... I don't think butterflies beat their wings that fast. Humming birds do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

russia cannot be right

they have a vaccine now so new cases should be zero

and the graph is so smooth .. it's almost like it has had a gentle massage in a relaxing white room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

I think the term was "humming bird wing" - from that pommy commentator....... I don't think butterflies beat their wings that fast. Humming birds do.

Quite right... I just remembered it was something that beat it's wings faster than an eagle! ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, P Flados said:

Given that I have repeatedly said that the AC allows unfair advantages

You sure have.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, P Flados said:

I see you continue to stoop to insults instead of providing a response that discusses anything of value.  I hope throwing insults makes you feel better.  It pretty much does nothing else (except reflect poorly on you or anyone else that smiles when they read you post).

Given that I have repeatedly said that the AC allows unfair advantages, I do not see why you seem to think I have a problem with this as being factual.  You really do not need to tell me this again.  I knew it long before you seemed compelled to say it over and over.

Your attack on me as a covidiot is just so laughable that I have tried to avoid wasting the space it would take to educate you. In some non-sailing forums I have argued strongly with people more deserving of your insult.  

The use of the term covidiot to describe anyone in the present climate is DISGUSTING. The fact the insult came from the ETNZ side is also very poor. To ETNZ supporters let’s cut that crap out now. We have been very lucky in NZ in other countries there lives are being turned upside down. I have two seperate family members living in Boston and it’s affecting there lives and children in a bad way. I have a son in the UK and his life is also affected. 
For millions and millions COVID is destroying their lives. Here in NZ we’re getting off very lightly and we should not being making COVID jokes. 
 

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me also say this to our friends who live outside NZ and have differing views to ETNZ supporters 

I hope ALL of you and Family remain safe and you get through this undamaged. Peoples lives are more important than ANY boat race 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO much politics goes on in these threads and a lot of it talks about what's fair and not fair etc or is at least underpinned by that. The Americas Cup has always been like that and will probably always be that way. Accepting that would go a long way to killing off the arguments. Just want to see these boats go head to head.! And let's hope that one of the challengers has at least the speed to match or better the defender to make it interesting. Otherwise it will be a clinical event with ETNZ smashing those before her..!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

russia cannot be right

they have a vaccine now so new cases should be zero

and the graph is so smooth .. it's almost like it has had a gentle massage in a relaxing white room

Just my attempt at an objective assessment based on facts as best I could determine them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, terrafirma said:

SO much politics goes on in these threads and a lot of it talks about what's fair and not fair etc or is at least underpinned by that. The Americas Cup has always been like that and will probably always be that way. Accepting that would go a long way to killing off the arguments.

I think to some extent both parties are heading that way......who knows peace might be break out soon.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MaxHugen said:

Quite right... I just remembered it was something that beat it's wings faster than an eagle! ;)

Max your interested in CFD etc

At what speed in aerodynamic theory does hull shape come critical for laminar flow

at 20 knots I doubt it

at 60 knots ( I know boats can’t do this) aerodynamic laminar flow would be critical 

Someone in between 20 and 60 knots lies a sweet spot
I know in NZ in the 70s they set the top speed at 50mph for cars. This was done to save petrol because after 50 mph aerodynamic drag starts growing fast. 
 

For those who says ac75 and a car are different. But both are affected by laminar flowing breaking down to unstable flow with drag. 
 

So where is this sweet spot for an AC75 hull ?

I think SomonN also knows a lot about this subject 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaxHugen said:

It will possibly come down to having a slight disadvantage in any area will decide a loser.

1. Hull. This may be the least critical, a minor aero disadvantage may not count for a great deal unless it impacts sail performance.

I think this issue of turbulence coming off the hull hitting the sails has been looked at.in some B1 boats. i thought Ineos B1 Bow shape might of been looking at this issue. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, weta27 said:

What, a Trump supporter saying that facts masks matter??! :lol:

FIFY. Guess we find out Friday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Horn Rock said:

I think the term was "humming bird wing" - from that pommy commentator....... I don't think butterflies beat their wings that fast. Humming birds do.

I have seen all the races many times, I never saw the humming bird thing.  In fact during one of the last races they split the screen with a rear view of each boat going downwind.  OR appeared to have the sheet being eased and sheeted on in a mindless pattern.  TNZ was pretty steady, they had the instrumentation to show them where it should be and they used it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, astro said:

I never saw the humming bird thing.

The humming bird thing was the top section of the wing twisting on and off - I think......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 5:33 PM, P Flados said:

And even more insults from the usual crowd of posters.  

I have conservative political views.  Many have liberal political views.  This is not PA.  Can we move on and stop with the insults.

Trump is not a conservative!  He is a con artist that is fleecing the government and is destroying our country.  A true conservative is not for restricting free trade, or enormous uncontrolled spending.  How about selling out our allies, accepting bounties on our troops.  Just the turnover in his administration is an example of his incompetence.  Not a single former member of his administration supports him, except for the convicted felons that his has pardoned.   Just listen to the lifelong republicans on who Trump really is:

I hate to get off onto politics, but voting for trump is inexcusable and a shows a major lack of understanding of what is actually happening to our country.  This is much more important than any personal interests, it is the future of America!
 

  • Like 7
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Trump is not a conservative!  He is a con artist that is fleecing the government and is destroying our country.  A true conservative is not for restricting free trade, or enormous uncontrolled spending.  How about selling out our allies, accepting bounties on our troops.  Just the turnover in his administration is an example of his incompetence.  Not a single former member of his administration supports him, except for the convicted felons that his has pardoned.   Just listen to the lifelong republicans on who Trump really is:

I hate to get off onto politics, but voting for trump is inexcusable and a shows a major lack of understanding of what is actually happening to our country.  This is much more important than any personal interests, it is the future of America!
 

I think if you consider Trump as a symptom rather than a cause you would be closer to the mark.  If he were to stand for election in NZ or any other Western Country I doubt that he would get 1% of the vote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to make any discussion with our American friends about there politics. It’s entirely an internal matter for Americans to decide . What I do know, if an American told me I should vote Labour our National,  that person who be told to do something anatomically impossible. However no American has, and I’m inclined to repay the favour and stay out of THEIR business. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but as the acknowledged " head of the free world " and a partner in most of our defence agreements / treaties .. its not just THEIR business

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

but as the acknowledged " head of the free world " and a partner in most of our defence agreements / treaties .. its not just THEIR business

I don’t take orders from the USA, I live in a free world, USA has no say in my life

How would you feel If Americans told you who you should be voting for ?? I don’t think your response would be happy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, astro said:

I have seen all the races many times, I never saw the humming bird thing.  In fact during one of the last races they split the screen with a rear view of each boat going downwind.  OR appeared to have the sheet being eased and sheeted on in a mindless pattern.  TNZ was pretty steady, they had the instrumentation to show them where it should be and they used it.

It was just an expression:

Glenn Ashby had a similar system for operating wing sheet, twist and camber, which could be operated from either side of the boat. There were no winches or ropes, unlike on other boats, and the wing could be pulled as well as pushed. The adjustments he was making were frequent and tiny, memorably described by Land Rover BAR’s Freddie Carr as: “like a hummingbird wing”.

http://www.yachtingworld.com/americas-cup/design-in-detail-exactly-what-made-emirates-team-new-zealand-so-fast-109101

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mako23 said:

Max your interested in CFD etc

At what speed in aerodynamic theory does hull shape come critical for laminar flow

at 20 knots I doubt it

at 60 knots ( I know boats can’t do this) aerodynamic laminar flow would be critical 

Someone in between 20 and 60 knots lies a sweet spot
I know in NZ in the 70s they set the top speed at 50mph for cars. This was done to save petrol because after 50 mph aerodynamic drag starts growing fast. 

So where is this sweet spot for an AC75 hull ?

I think SomonN also knows a lot about this subject 

Mate, I honestly couldn't even make a guess!

First, you can look at a cross section of the hull at the midline, we can see where all teams are looking at increasing laminar flow aft. INEOS took this to extremes with their high hull sides aft, maybe as "end plates". But I think this was an error. (IMO)

Next, one would need to consider that apparent wind is somewhere around 16-18° off the bow, so a diagonal section becomes an issue as well - which is where I feel INEOS had it wrong. Is it their B2 that has a sharp "chine" at the hull/deck interface? This looks like it could be addressing this for crosswise airflow both over and under the hull. Maybe?

Then, you have airflow disruption from everything that protrudes from the hull, such as crew etc. These all disrupt any laminar flow.

In short, I'd guess that part of the hull might keep laminar flow right to the stern, but there will no doubt be plenty of turbulent flow as well, and as drag increases to the square of airflow speed, every reduction in turbulence will count, especially at mid to high speeds.

[Edit]  Crikey, had to wade back through pages and pages of bumf to find boat stuff... but it's AM's B2 with the chine at hull/deck (not Ineos) I think:

image.png.535e053c1bdab339db16bbfefb11aeae.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mako23 said:

How would you feel If Americans told you who you should be voting for ?? I don’t think your response would be happy. 

i would consider their points and why they made them

then add that to formulating or reformulating my opinion

and if the usa goes to war we will almost definitely go with them .. esp if its within our treaty sphere

the decisions they make do effect you

ww1 started by a chain of events that were each triggered by some treaty

 

and may i make the observation

not listening to others or considering opposing views is what created this fiasco in the first place

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Horn Rock said:

The humming bird thing was the top section of the wing twisting on and off - I think......

See there you have it.  Everyone has 'I think'.

I watched it all, many times, not once has anyone shown video of this being done.  It's complete bullshit maybe started as an inside joke that got away.

Another supposed ability was the reverse camber at the top of the main, supposedly to produce righting-moment.  Never saw it.  If they did the drag produced would counter the RM biggly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, astro said:

I watched it all, many times, not once has anyone shown video of this being done.  It's complete bullshit maybe started as an inside joke that got away.

I recently rewatched the entire series again, and there was a segment from the stern video, that showed the clew of NZ moving in and out frequently... I don't think it was in one position for more than a couple of seconds! The commentators were remarking on the ability of Ashby being able to make such rapid trimming using his "X-Box", in comparison to the other teams. They didn't comment on wing twist etc though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From observation any rapid movements were due to the 'follow the dot' tracking both the foil and main trimmers were using.  If the dot was moving they followed it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never saw the Hummingbird Wing flapping or the reverse camber myself despite  constantly looking for it and reviewing the footage. Nice idea and seemed a sound concept.  Perhaps was too subtle to see. Maybe I missed the above segment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

ww1 started by a chain of events that were each triggered by some treaty

I’m retired and in the middle of writing several books. One of these books deals with the aftermath of WW1. I spent over two years studying ww1 for preparation in this book. Including 3 months studying the start of the war.  Does it make me an expert.....hell no. The First World War is sometimes referred to as the third Balkan War among some historians. With the decline of the Ottoman Empire a vacuum  of power was created in ex Ottoman territories. This caused two wars in the Balkans  during 1913. What caused WW1 was Austria and Russia trying to win influence and power in this area. The Russian strong backing of Serbia and Serbian influence in Bosnia ( Austrian territory) almost caused war several times. Germany backed Austria and France backed Russia. Eventually Serbian meddling in Austrian affairs backed by Russia, forces Austria to attack Serbia. That attack started WW1

Phil NZ I’m sorry for this long babble above, but what caused WW1 is meddling in other countries affairs. Hence my opinion that the world would be better if everyone stuck to there business and kept out of other countries business.  I intend to follow this example and keep my nose out of others affairs. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Crux said:

Never saw the Hummingbird Wing flapping or the reverse camber myself despite  constantly looking for it and reviewing the footage. Nice idea and seemed a sound concept.  Perhaps was too subtle to see. Maybe I missed the above segment!

I didn't see any "flapping", I would guess they were trying to trim for every small gust or slight shift in wind direction. As Astro commented above, it was probably a case of "follow the dots" on their screens. IIRC, NZ initially used the computers to control the wing and foils, and the crew practised "matching" what the computer would do. (Can't say if that's factual though!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yehh it was more  on how a regional conflict / action snow balled into a world war ( because of treaties / pacts / agreements etc )  .. not so much on what was the actual slow match that lit the fuse

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mako23 said:

As someone suffering terribly from DDD let me respond

Much of what you write I agree with....let me add my view,

Its obvious in my opinion that LR had inside knowledge. How many decisions they made it’s up to discussion. Either way I doubt that LR adesign team was disadvantaged. 
 

The next question  how much AM and Ineos were affected ?

I accept that they were affected by one or two months but not six

In my opinion and Ineos were not fully operational during the period ETNZ and LR was developing the rule 

of these two Ineos was maybe affected most because they were in existence during the whole period. During this period they were BAR. However they were not well funded but not so poorly funded that they couldn’t attended a design meeting. How much money they could of thrown into design is debatable . 
AM didnt form until October. 
A key important date is when the concept boat was launched. How useful this information is open to debate. It was enough information for AM design team to start simulations. 
Anither key issue is when did ETNZ lock down the design to a point when definitive CFD could happen.  I suspect its December. Others can disagree.   That leaves three months as an advantage. However the AM and Ineos has concept designs in November giving them a month of preparation and initial design work.....During all of  December. Take that month away and ETNZ ends up with two months being ahead.

was that totally fair....No

Was it a massive advantage ....No

 

To totally blame ETNZ for the lack of information is also unfair. LR also played its part by remaining silent 

Another issue to consider is AC35 was a very unhappy experience for LR and ETNZ. Blood was boiling

To expect everyone then to sit down and have a productive meeting of design is asking too much of people. Look at how much we fight among our selves in this forum. Yet  we weren’t directly involved 

 

 

 

Both of you, stop. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last two pages of your drivel has nothing to do with NYYC

You moved from the inquisitive little puppy to shitting  in every thread regardless of topic, You are just spamming now. 
 

I can start a new topic for you if you wish? The it’s all about mako23 thread. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites